Author Topic: Muslim members - or members who have a close understanding of Muslim culture...  (Read 8118 times)

Stand_watie

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,925
Regarding swine, a curiousity to me...

(Jewish members, feel free to chime in, as my understanding of Muslim prohibitions on swine are that they are on offshoot of Jewish prohibitions)

A recent news story - for that matter, quite possibly my own confusion of two different news stories - causes me to question this issue. By all means, if you're a Muslim, who categorically knows that your understanding is more or less the Muslim understanding (with the caveat that of course their are going to be extremes on both fringes of the gamut of the issue), say so, and if you're a Muslim who knows that he/she can only speak for your sect of Islam, say "Shia" or "Sunni", please say so, and I'll take your statement for what it's worth without including people called "Muslim" that don't feel the way you do in my own understanding.

Recently (within the past couple months) I read about a Mosque going under construction in a suburb of Houston, Texas, that had opposition from neighbors...one neighbor said that he was going to raise swine to try and prevent the Muslims from building their Mosque. The response from the spokesperson from the Muslim association was sort of a public shrug, and the statement that they were opposed to eating pork, that they didn't care what their neighbors raised.

Tonight I caught about 10 or 12 seconds of a newspiece out of the corner of my eye/ear about a mosque going in where a neighbor *claimed* that the  Muslims had come to his house and complained to him about his animals...and he was setting up "pig racing" as a response. The response from the spokesperson of the Muslim group in this story was virtually identical to the first (and FWIW, regardless of whether or not it's truthful, this tack is probably the perfect response from the perspective of getting people to NOT attempt to offend you with swine).

I don't know if the two stories are one and the same. I don't know that the guy in the second story isn't making up the "complaint" to justify his attempts to offend Muslims.

What I'm curious about is if swine are offensive (religiously I mean, I've lived next to swine and they're offensive nasally to just about everyone) to Muslims by general proximity, by actual contact (ie touching a pig), or only by deliberately eating?

Yizkor. Lo Od Pa'am

"You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers"

"Never again"

"Malone Labe"

Vodka7

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,067
I dated a muslim for years, spent a lot of time with her family, went to mosques, and visited her country (Egypt.)  Only problem they had with with swine is eating it--the older muslims will tell you that the pig is a dirty animal and a breeding ground for diseases that will kill you instantly upon your first bite of bacon, and the younger ones just don't eat it.  Oddly, as far as the normal prohibitions (drinking, premarital sex, pork) it's usually the last one to be broken (if ever.)

I know quite a few muslims who smoke pot and have premarital sex, and a few who drink, but just about none of them will touch pork.

Though, these are just my observansations, and I'm not trying to speak for every muslim, just sharing my experience.

Devonai

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,645
  • Panic Mode Activated
    • Kyrie Devonai Publishing
Pork doesn't get you high or give you orgasms.  Easy omission.
My writing blog: Kyrie Devonai Publishing

When in danger, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!

mfree

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,637
Pork would, at least in the ancient era, give you trichinosis easily... which you *don't* want.

Most of the food taboos end up health matters if you look hard enough into them. Shellfish back then would have been teeming with bacteria from the open sewage dumping, milk wasn't pasteurized so had natural bacteria and wasn't a good idea to mix with beef in a dish, even the requirement to clean the kitchen with boiling water can be seen as a old health matter.

Nowadays the swine are tested, the shellfish is deep-sea and cleaner, the milk is darn near sterile, and the kitchen surfaces don't absorb anything. Where's my ham sandwich with shrimp and beef stroganoff! Smiley

The Rabbi

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,435
  • "Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"
Pork would, at least in the ancient era, give you trichinosis easily... which you *don't* want.

Most of the food taboos end up health matters if you look hard enough into them. Shellfish back then would have been teeming with bacteria from the open sewage dumping, milk wasn't pasteurized so had natural bacteria and wasn't a good idea to mix with beef in a dish, even the requirement to clean the kitchen with boiling water can be seen as a old health matter.

Nowadays the swine are tested, the shellfish is deep-sea and cleaner, the milk is darn near sterile, and the kitchen surfaces don't absorb anything. Where's my ham sandwich with shrimp and beef stroganoff! Smiley

[coughcoughbullsh*tcoughcough]

In Judaism (and I assume Islam as well) the only prohibition is on eating pork. There tends to be a prohibition on deriving benefit from it as a matter of course (e.g. raising hogs for profit) but not on an incidental basis (e.g. someone gives you a can of spam and you feed it to your dog).
Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.

El Tejon

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,641
    • http://www.kirkfreemanlaw.com
It's sort of like how different Christian churches, even in the same denomination, treat tobacco, alcohol or the like.

I had one client who merely shrugged at notion of eating pork tenderloin or bacon, but went absolutely nuts at the notion of a dog living in one's house. 

I do not smoke pot, wear Wookie suits, live in my mom's basement, collect unemployment checks or eat Cheetoes, therefore I am not a Ron Paul voter.

mfree

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,637
Crap in a hat. Rabbi, I wasn't talking just about judaism and islam; those are a mix of classic food taboos across regions and over several religions.


The Rabbi

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,435
  • "Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"
Crap in a hat. Rabbi, I wasn't talking just about judaism and islam; those are a mix of classic food taboos across regions and over several religions.



Doesnt matter.  Your answer betrays a severe cultural bias.  And the answer is simply incorrect, btw.
Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.

grislyatoms

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,740
Pork would, at least in the ancient era, give you trichinosis easily... which you *don't* want.

Most of the food taboos end up health matters if you look hard enough into them. Shellfish back then would have been teeming with bacteria from the open sewage dumping, milk wasn't pasteurized so had natural bacteria and wasn't a good idea to mix with beef in a dish, even the requirement to clean the kitchen with boiling water can be seen as a old health matter.

Nowadays the swine are tested, the shellfish is deep-sea and cleaner, the milk is darn near sterile, and the kitchen surfaces don't absorb anything. Where's my ham sandwich with shrimp and beef stroganoff! Smiley

[coughcoughbullsh*tcoughcough]

In Judaism (and I assume Islam as well) the only prohibition is on eating pork.

Please correct me if I am wrong, Rabbi, but doesn't Judaism forbid seafood if it does not have scales and fins? Thereby precluding shellfish from the diet?

I just read about the "milk and meat in the same dish" portion too. Is this also incorrect?

I just found this. Are all of these incorrect?

"The Details
Animals that may not be eaten
Of the "beasts of the earth" (which basically refers to land mammals with the exception of swarming rodents), you may eat any animal that has cloven hooves and chews its cud. Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6. Any land mammal that does not have both of these qualities is forbidden. The Torah specifies that the camel, the rock badger, the hare and the pig are not kosher because each lacks one of these two qualifications. Sheep, cattle, goats and deer are kosher.

Of the things that are in the waters, you may eat anything that has fins and scales. Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9. Thus, shellfish such as lobsters, oysters, shrimp, clams and crabs are all forbidden. Fish like tuna, carp, salmon and herring are all permitted.

For birds, the criteria is less clear. The Torah lists forbidden birds (Lev. 11:13-19; Deut. 14:11-18), but does not specify why these particular birds are forbidden. All of the birds on the list are birds of prey or scavengers, thus the rabbis inferred that this was the basis for the distinction. Other birds are permitted, such as chicken, geese, ducks and turkeys.

Of the "winged swarming things" (winged insects), a few are specifically permitted (Lev. 11:22), but the Sages are no longer certain which ones they are, so all have been forbidden.

Rodents, reptiles, amphibians, and insects (except as mentioned above) are all forbidden. Lev. 11:29-30, 42-43.

As mentioned above, any product derived from these forbidden animals, such as their milk, eggs, fat, or organs, also cannot be eaten. Rennet, an enzyme used to harden cheese, is often obtained from non-kosher animals, thus kosher hard cheese can be difficult to find."

from

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/kashrut.html
"A son of the sea, am I" Gordon Lightfoot

The Rabbi

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,435
  • "Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"
I meant, the only prohibition on pork is eating it.  There are plenty of other dietary prohibitions as well.
Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.

grislyatoms

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,740
Gotcha, thanks, I misunderstood your statement.
"A son of the sea, am I" Gordon Lightfoot

gunsmith

  • I forgot to get vaccinated!
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,179
  • I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
there used to be some Palestinians down the street , they owned a store and we got to be friends because they shoot at the same range and noticed I never bought alcohol (& a few other things we had in common)
They told me they "never" drink...then one day I saw them in a restaurant , drinking a little wine!
(birthday)
I doubt I would ever see them eating pork.
Politicians and bureaucrats are considered productive if they swarm the populace like a plague of locust, devouring all substance in their path and leaving a swath of destruction like a firestorm. The technical term is "bipartisanship".
Rocket Man: "The need for booster shots for the immunized has always been based on the science.  Political science, not medical science."

mfree

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,637
I've apparently missed something here... somehow I've developed a severe cultural bias because I think that there *just* might be a logical cause behind what are seemingly illogical restrictions on food intake.

The Rabbi

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,435
  • "Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"
I've apparently missed something here... somehow I've developed a severe cultural bias because I think that there *just* might be a logical cause behind what are seemingly illogical restrictions on food intake.

Yes, you've got it right.
Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.

mfree

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,637
Are you this contrarian in real life? Mind explaining my error so I can change my ways?

Typhoon

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 236
Although the original dietary restrictions quoted in the Scriptures probably had heath reasons for their adoption, I have always understood that modern Jews maintain them on more profound grounds.

Part as tradition (i.e. Were part of a larger community), part as humane practice (i.e. Insuring that animals are butchered correctly and with minimal suffering) and part as making the mundane act of consuming daily meals yet another way to bring folks into a closer relationship with The Creator.     
To the stars!

cordex

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,626
I'm not Jewish, but I tend to follow most of the dietary guidelines.  My reasoning is that if one believes in what is contained in the Bible, some critters just weren't made with human consumption in mind while others were (whether or not you believe it to be "lawful").  Pragmatically, eating pork may not be significantly more dangerous than eating - for instance - beef in modern times, but I don't see the benefit of eating pork in any case, and I see benefits to not doing so. 

The few that I don't follow - such as the milk and meat prohibition - is more of a disagreement in intent.  "Boiling a kid in its mother's milk" is said to really mean that no milk products may be eaten or cooked with meat products.  It seems to me that if that was the intent, the instruction would have been written differently.

The Jewish position on Kashrut is traditionally along the lines of "Screw the health benefits or drawbacks, we do this because G-d told us to."  I believe that is what Rabbi is referring to in his ... *ahem* ... terse replies.  It doesn't strike me as beyond God to give commandments to his people that would benefit them but as I understand it, the reason Judaism usually refrains from recognizing the health benefits as the driving force behind the laws of Kashrut is because the commands exist independently of the benefits.  There are physical, psychological and social benefits to the Sabbath rest as well, but if those benefits went away or ceased to be important the Sabbath would still be kept.

The Rabbi

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,435
  • "Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"
Are you this contrarian in real life? Mind explaining my error so I can change my ways?

Sure.

Your first error is the assumption that primitive people were stupid too, a belief labeled "Urdumheit" and found in other contexts.  So if something was physically harmful then they just invented a god-given prohibition against it.  Of course there is no prohibition on poisonous mushrooms or deadly nightshade but whatever.
Second, the verse prohibiting pork also prohibits camels and rabbits explicitly.  As far as I know everyone else in the Middle East eats both those things with no ill effects.  So the prohibition cannot be health related.
Third, the prohibition is in a category called "chok" meaning statute.  It is prohibited because it is prohibited.  There is no rational reason for it, by definition.  Included in such prohibitions is the one against wearing wool and linen mixed together.  There obviously is no health danger wearing these two fibers (and just that combination), yet the Torah forbids it.
Finally you discount spiritual/religious practices has being simply good advice for healthy living.  They are not.  They are fundamentally different from that.
Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,425
  • My prepositions are on/in
Your first error is the assumption that primitive people were stupid too, a belief labeled "Urdumheit" and found in other contexts. 

That is taken as dogma by most.  I prefer to call it "temporal chauvinism."  The modern man doesn't see mankind as descending from Paradise, but as rising from primordial soup.
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

The Rabbi

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,435
  • "Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"
Your first error is the assumption that primitive people were stupid too, a belief labeled "Urdumheit" and found in other contexts. 

That is taken as dogma by most.  I prefer to call it "temporal chauvinism."  The modern man doesn't see mankind as descending from Paradise, but as rising from primordial soup.

I saw this idea many years ago in regard to the Middle Ages.  I cannot remember where it was.  It might have been Curtius' Latin Literature and the Late Middle Ages but that was a long time ago.
His thesis was that the "Dark Ages" were only considered so much later, during the Enlightenment.  The Enlightenment worshipped the Renaissance and so disparaged what came before (a more religious age) as "dark".
Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.

Werewolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,126
  • Lead, Follow or Get the HELL out of the WAY!
Crap in a hat. Rabbi, I wasn't talking just about judaism and islam; those are a mix of classic food taboos across regions and over several religions.



Doesnt matter.  Your answer betrays a severe cultural bias.  And the answer is simply incorrect, btw.

Please - enlighten us then as to the correct answer. What are the origins of the various food taboos in Judaism and Islam?
Life is short, Break the rules, Forgive quickly, Kiss slowly, Love
truly, Laugh uncontrollably, And never regret anything that made you smile.

Fight Me Online

Werewolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,126
  • Lead, Follow or Get the HELL out of the WAY!
Are you this contrarian in real life? Mind explaining my error so I can change my ways?

Sure.

Your first error is the assumption that primitive people were stupid too, a belief labeled "Urdumheit" and found in other contexts.  So if something was physically harmful then they just invented a god-given prohibition against it. 
You are correct sir. Primitive peoples were not stupid and did observe the ill effects of eating various foods. That is exactly why most food prohibitions exist because not everyone was willing to take the smart guy who made the observation's word for it that eating that pig may result in your getting ill.
Quote
Of course there is no prohibition on poisonous mushrooms or deadly nightshade but whatever.
There aren't a whole lot of mushrooms or nightshade that grow in the arrid environs where the semitic peoples have historicaly resided. Thus it was very unlikely that anyone would have noticed ill effects from injesting them and no prohibition was necessary
Quote
Second, the verse prohibiting pork also prohibits camels and rabbits explicitly.  As far as I know everyone else in the Middle East eats both those things with no ill effects.  So the prohibition cannot be health related.
Maybe now because people are a bit more medically enlightened but they were hardly privy to knowledge of parasites then. Rabbits are chock full of worms during the summer months and in warm climates. Don't know about camels...
Quote
Third, the prohibition is in a category called "chok" meaning statute.  It is prohibited because it is prohibited.  There is no rational reason for it, by definition.  Included in such prohibitions is the one against wearing wool and linen mixed together.  There obviously is no health danger wearing these two fibers (and just that combination), yet the Torah forbids it.
Back to the ole organized religion is all about control. Get people accustomed to following rules that make no sense and it becomes easier and easier to get them to follow rules that do.
Quote
Finally you discount spiritual/religious practices has being simply good advice for healthy living.  They are not.  They are fundamentally different from that.
Not really.
Life is short, Break the rules, Forgive quickly, Kiss slowly, Love
truly, Laugh uncontrollably, And never regret anything that made you smile.

Fight Me Online

The Rabbi

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,435
  • "Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"
Werewolf,
You obviously have an agenda and are more interested in pushing it than in either learning anything or debating.
Have a nice day.
Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.

Werewolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,126
  • Lead, Follow or Get the HELL out of the WAY!
Werewolf,
You obviously have an agenda and are more interested in pushing it than in either learning anything or debating.
Have a nice day.
Answer the question Rabbi.

What are the reasons for the food taboos of the semitic religions? You did a great job of skirting the issue in your reply #17.

I, and I am sure others, really want to know: What are the reasons for the food taboos of the semitic religions?

Here's your chance to expain it to us. Even if your answer is as simple as God said so though I seriously doubt if that would be a very Rabbincal answer.
Life is short, Break the rules, Forgive quickly, Kiss slowly, Love
truly, Laugh uncontrollably, And never regret anything that made you smile.

Fight Me Online

The Rabbi

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,435
  • "Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"
Werewolf,
You obviously have an agenda and are more interested in pushing it than in either learning anything or debating.
Have a nice day.
Answer the question Rabbi.

What are the reasons for the food taboos of the semitic religions.

I, and I am sure others, really want to know.

Here's your chance to put up or shut up!

Sure.
In Judaism we have explicit verses in the Torah that forbid eating certain items.    That is their origin.
In Islam, I assume, they have explicit verses in the Koran forbidding certain items.  That is the origin for those prohibitions.
Satisfied?
Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.